The REAL Names of the Bible

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by HairlessApe
reply to post by undo

 

The guy I was responding to said we needed to know the TRUTH.
Therefore science.

ahhh.

so do you have anything scientific to add to the study of etymology?

Just this:
Hi-five for Jesus.

oh! yeah! high five for jesus! if we could even begin to do what he did, this place would be awesome. although, walking on water might be a bit of a problem. i could see boats crashing into each other while gawking. lol moving mountains around might be an air traffic control menace. multiplying food could result in lawsuits from companies that have a monopoly on it. that kinda thing (and water into wine...well that's a real dangerous proposition! depending of course on whether it just meant fruit juice or fermented wine)

reply to post by Knives4eyes


"In the beginning was the "WORD" and the "WORD" was god and the "WORD" became flesh."

"Tell him, I AM sent you."

"......Did you know Moses? I say this, before Moses was, I AM."

"I Am, that I AM." -JC

"I am truth" -JC

God is a living god, not stone, gold or whatever the created choose to worship as a god. It is by his "WORD" that all things exist.

People all the time try and discredit the word of god/bible. But there is an answer in it, to every argument put forth against it.

People talk against it because it is truth. There are rules, right and wrong. It opens their eyes to the fact that the lord is angury with their life style, thoughts and actions. This offends people, they don't like it!

It says, "In the last days they will call evil good and good evil".... Such is the case in the times we live.

reply to post by HairlessApe

Originally posted by HairlessApe
The guy I was responding to said we needed to know the TRUTH.
Therefore science.

Science has no more credibility than Dr. Nick...

The fact that you actually BELIEVE it, does absolutely nothing for your credibility.

Science is nothing but a MASSIVE form of mind control...

"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe. They accomplished this by adopting new rules in regards to scientific research.

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

Originally posted by Murgatroid
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

Originally posted by HairlessApe
The guy I was responding to said we needed to know the TRUTH.
Therefore science.

Science has no more credibility than Dr. Nick...

The fact that you actually BELIEVE it, does absolutely nothing for your credibility.

Science is nothing but a MASSIVE form of mind control...

"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe. They accomplished this by adopting new rules in regards to scientific research.

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

You are absolutely, positively, irrefutably, genuinely, lovingly, oh-so-lovingly, oh-ohhhh-ohhhhhh-the-lords-lovin'-is-so-gooooood~ correct.

Now wash my feet.

Also one question - Which sect of Christianity is the correct one?

Originally posted by undo
oh! yeah! high five for jesus! if we could even begin to do what he did, this place would be awesome. although, walking on water might be a bit of a problem. i could see boats crashing into each other while gawking. lol moving mountains around might be an air traffic control menace. multiplying food could result in lawsuits from companies that have a monopoly on it. that kinda thing (and water into wine...well that's a real dangerous proposition! depending of course on whether it just meant fruit juice or fermented wine)

Monsanto would be ALL OVER that dude.
2nd line.

Also, I'm Irish. I can handle only being able to drink fermented liquids from now on.
(No, I'm not drunk)

reply to post by HairlessApe

Originally posted by HairlessApe
You are absolutely, positively, irrefutably, genuinely, lovingly, oh-so-lovingly, oh-ohhhh-ohhhhhh-the-lords-lovin'-is-so-gooooood~ correct.

Now wash my feet.

Also one question - Which sect of Christianity is the correct one?

Caught me off guard bro...

Jesus never told anyone to follow a religion.

He said follow ME.

For me personally, that has made all the difference in the world .

reply to post by Minus


The name "John" was intended to suggest Plato's Ion from Ephesus who was a less than honest interpretor of Homer. In effect a "John" represents someone who intentionally distorts or withholds information for the benefit of a faction of which he pretends not to be associated. The exact identity of John the Baptist in the Gospel allegories is difficult to determine due to the fact that literal time elements cannot be trusted.

The Gnostics describe Baptism this way: The baptism which we previously mentioned is called "garment of those who do not strip themselves of it," for those who will put it on and those who have received redemption wear it. It is also called "the confirmation of the truth which has no fall." In an unwavering and immovable way it grasps those who have received the restoration while they grasp it. (Baptism) is called "silence" because of the quiet and the tranquility. The Tripartite Trac, Chapter 15.

This means that both Tacitus and Tranquillus, who are two key sources of 1st Century history, were also "baptizers", but it seems unlikely that either one was THE John the Baptist. Josephus was also a baptizer, but there is no clear indication that he was John the Baptist either. I suspect that John the Baptist could be another name for Jonah who apparently altered the history of Assyria so that it did not conflict significantly with the false history presented in the Old Testament. (The name "Jonah" means "dove" and we all know how the "white dove" is associated with "peace". Note also the similarity in the name "Jonah" to the name "John".)

John the Apostle on the other hand was clearly Philo who was an interpretor of Moses and therefore more closely matches the role of Plato's Ion which then also links him to Ephesus.

Originally posted by Murgatroid
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

Originally posted by HairlessApe
You are absolutely, positively, irrefutably, genuinely, lovingly, oh-so-lovingly, oh-ohhhh-ohhhhhh-the-lords-lovin'-is-so-gooooood~ correct.

Now wash my feet.

Also one question - Which sect of Christianity is the correct one?

Caught me off guard bro...

Jesus never told anyone to follow a religion.

He said follow ME.

For me personally, that has made all the difference in the world .

Then why was he a Jew?

What about sects of Christianity that exalt Mary? The Holy Ghost? The Father?

What if you support a sect of Christianity that does undeniably evil things, like allow child molesters to go unpunished and tell Africans with AIDs to not use condoms? (Roman Catholic) Or Protests Veteran Funerals? (Westboro Baptist)

What if you follow Joseph Smith AND Jesus?

What about people that "interpret" the Bible but don't actually read it - getting it's lessons wrong?

What about fundamental groups? Modern groups that discard the fundamentals?

What about people who are misguided into thinking the word of Jesus who aren't?

There are lost books of the Bible. Did you ever here of th "Book of Chuckie" or the "Book of Bubba", no? Of course you haven't because they have been keeping the secret knowledge from you.

reply to post by HairlessApe

Originally posted by HairlessApe
Then why was he a Jew?

He wasn't a Jew.

Judaism is not the Old Testament religion that many believe.

Nor is the Bible a Jewish book...

More in another post here.

The late Rabbi Stephen F. Wise, formerly the Chief Rabbi of the United States said, "The return from Babylon and the introduction of the Babylonian Talmud mark the end of Hebrewism and the beginning of Judaism."

The learned Rabbi was correct in distinguishing the true religion of the Old Testament as Hebrewism for it was the religion of the real Hebrews, who were not Jews at all. Judaism, the religion of the Jews, is as the learned Rabbi says, based upon the Babylonian Talmud, which contains the supposed oral law. It was never reduced to writing as part of the Bible. This oral law gradually gained greater force among the Jews than the written law in the Bible, with which it often conflicted in Jesus' day, the Babylonian Talmud was known as the Tradition of the Elders.

This was the religion of the Jews. As the learned Rabbi Stephen F. Wise said, Judaism was distinguished from Hebrewism, the real religion of the Old Testament. Certainly Christianity took nothing from any Jewish religion for we have never taken any part of Christianity from the Talmud. Well then, can it be said we got our Bible or our religion of Christianity from men of the Jewish race? No, it cannot.

The Bible is not a Jewish Book

reply to post by Murgatroid


I find it hilarious when people knock on science when oftentimes it's done from the comfort of a computer. Which is the embodiment of scientific achievement. It doesn't help your argument at all.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Nothing hilarious at all about people being lied to.

The fact that you are actually gullible enough to believe what Science is telling you does absolutely nothing for your credibility as well.

Your "scientific achievement" is nothing but a huge form of mind control...

This is the reason WHY you cannot fathom reality.

"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe. They accomplished this by adopting new rules in regards to scientific research.

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

reply to post by Murgatroid


You're right Murgatroid; I honestly cannot fathom your reality.

You just keep on eating the fruit science provides for you every single day, and then spin it however you want to. All power to you. Your religious theories aren't convincing me one bit. I must be too far gone.

Originally posted by Minus
reply to post by AndyMayhew

 

I assume that as John, Jean, Johannes, Giovanni etc are all the same name in different languages, that John the Baptist's name was the Aramaic equivalent of John and has simply been translated accordingly?

Yes its the same person. but is it correct to translate names? of course the words themselves are translated, but person names, city names and country names - should they be translated at all?

Minus,

Hi, in private revelation, Jesus states do not read modern translations of the Bible, too many changes.

And sadly, one Bible translated in the 17th century. The KJV Bible has thousands of changes from the original Bible because of the Reformation.

The first Bible was written the common language of the time, Latin, St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate. My mother could read Latin but I can't so I read the English translation of the Latin Vulgate called the Douay-Rheims Bible. It is online to read but go purchase or order a paperback of the Douay-Rheims. We will not have electronics forever. www.drbo.org...

I wish there was a red lined Douay-Rheims Bible to see immediately the words of Our Lord.


God bless you,


colbe

reply to post by colbe


I use the Knox bible for the same reason. English translation of the Latin Vulgate.

Is it your understanding the one you're using is more accurate? Really curious if it is.

/Knox-Bible/

In the early twentieth century with the blessings of the English bishops, Msgr. Ronald Knox embarked on an entirely new English Bible. It was to be based upon the Clementine edition of the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome, but Knox consulted the texts in Greek and Hebrew where necessary in order to ensure the accuracy of the translation.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by colbe

 

I use the Knox bible for the same reason. English translation of the Latin Vulgate.

Is it your understanding the one you're using is more accurate? Really curious if it is.

/Knox-Bible/

In the early twentieth century with the blessings of the English bishops, Msgr. Ronald Knox embarked on an entirely new English Bible. It was to be based upon the Clementine edition of the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome, but Knox consulted the texts in Greek and Hebrew where necessary in order to ensure the accuracy of the translation.

edit on 18-7-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

LucidL,

Hi, I can't say, I don't know. If Msgr. Knox's translation is closer to the Latin Vulgate, I am all for it. Go here
in the Preface to read about the translator of the www.drbo.org... Bishop Richard Challoner, his is a
revision (1749-1752).

Since I can't read Latin, I wan to get as close as I can to Our Lord's exact words.


blessings,


colbe

reply to post by Murgatroid


So God wrote the bible, thats interesting. I thought man did. So you think they got it all right? I dont think so. Over the years Im sure it was edited, to fit the needs of the higher ups' no pun intended.

Originally posted by Murgatroid
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

Originally posted by HairlessApe
You are absolutely, positively, irrefutably, genuinely, lovingly, oh-so-lovingly, oh-ohhhh-ohhhhhh-the-lords-lovin'-is-so-gooooood~ correct.

Now wash my feet.

Also one question - Which sect of Christianity is the correct one?

Caught me off guard bro...

Jesus never told anyone to follow a religion.

He said follow ME.

For me personally, that has made all the difference in the world .

I have a question about that as well, if Jesus never told anyone to follow a religion, why is there differnt facets of religion? Why follow any of them? Just follow him? So what is Christianity then if not a religion?

So I lied I had a few questions..